Pledge of Allegiance Bill

[Emsworth]

Pledge of Allegiance Bill

1. There shall be no officially sanctioned pledge of allegiance to Atlasia, its flag, or its government that shall be given or suggested to private citizens to recite in or on the grounds of any public institution, including, but not limited to, public schools.

2. The content of section 1 shall not be construed to illegalize oaths of office given to individuals who have been elected or appointed to a government position. Oaths of office in all cases shall remain untouched and shall continue to be required before any government service shall commence.

Sponsor: Sen. Gabu

[Emsworth]

The question is on the motion to table the bill (reject without debate). All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

I would urge the Senate to vote No, so that it may debate the issue before coming to a final decision.

[Emsworth]

One Senator is absent. With five Nays, the motion to table is defeated.

I would advise the Senate that the motion to table should be used only to dispose of frivolous legislation (e.g., Nasolation), not bills that one disagrees with. I thank Senators Defarge, Al, Ebowed, Gabu, and Colin for agreeing with me in this.

[Emsworth]

Perhaps we may commence debating this bill, and those who oppose it may give their reasons.

I feel that there is absolutely no need for a federally sanctioned pledge of allegiance. It is said by the proponents of the pledge that it allows citizens to express their patriotism. But, why is it necessary for the federal government to sanction one particular means of expressing patriotism? I'm sure that the People can express their patriotism quite freely, and on their own, without the federal government telling them which way is the "correct" way.

Do the opponents of this bill fear that the People will suddenly become unpatriotic if the pledge is no longer sanctioned? I would think that the People would not: the patriotism of our citizenry is based not on a few words, but on their actual feelings, their actual thoughts, their actual sentiments. I think that, to a true patriot, there would be no need for the government to sanction a pledge of allegiance: he would remain faithful to his country, regardless of the official status of some particular sentence.

[Emsworth]

The pledge acts as a tool to remind people that they are Americans, with the rights and responsibilities of Americans.

I assert that it does no such thing. Any value it may have to children has been diminished to nothing or nearly nothing by the daily, almost mindless repetition of the pledge in schools. As to adults, it shouldn't matter, as almost all of them don't say the pledge regularly anyway.

In any event, I would have hoped that the patriotism of the Atlasian People is strong enough to exist on its own, to stand without the crutch of a series of words.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are free to address that issue at the regional level, Jake. With all due respect, the federal government is not concerned here.

[Emsworth]

No, the issues are closely related. Not only are children expected and required to learn it, unlike the pledge, but they will fail if they don't regurgitate the government mandated curriculum.

As I said, the curriculum is a regional issue, not a federal one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The pledge is not being banned. You can say it, the regions can still recognize it, and schools can still require it. The federal government will not, however, recognize any pledge as official if this bill passes: I see no harm whatsoever in it.

Even though the pledge was written in the 1800s, there was no federally-sanctioned pledge until 1942, with no adverse effects whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those aren't grounds for voting this bill down, though.

[Emsworth]

People are saying it's forcing you to be patritotic. It's not you don't have to say it if you don't want to.

Most school students would disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct, but why is it necessary for the government to officially sanction it? While the pledge has been around since the 1800s, people managed to be perfectly patriotic without it being sanctioned until 1942.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're not getting rid of anything. We are merely reverting to the pre-1942 situation, in which the government did not attempt to legislate how people should express their patriotism.

[Emsworth]

Just stop trying to take away our option to say the pledge the when and way it is now.

Where have I done that? I am not in the habit of supporting bills that restrict the freedom of speech. Perhaps, you could point out how this bill is taking away someone's right to say whatever he pleases.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't accept your premise. By that line of reasoning, a man shouldn't try to get rid of abortions, because they don't affect him. By that line of reasoning, a white person shouldn't try to get rid of anti-black discrimination, because it doesn't affect him. By that line of reasoning, a clergyman shouldn't try to get rid of gay marriage, because it doesn't affect him.

(Please note that I am only making the comparison to consider the merits of your line of reasoning; I am not saying, for example, that the pledge is like abortion.)

[Emsworth]

You're trying to take away the pledge which means that it won't be said anymore which means you're taking away peoples rights to say it the way it is at the time it is now.

No, that's a misinterpretation of this bill. What clause in the bill changes anything with regard to schools? Education is a regional issue; the bill obviously cannot have any effect in schools, unless regional governments provide otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The national anthem is more symbolic, like the national flower or the national bird. It is not an affirmation of allegiance like the pledge.

[Emsworth]

As this is a controversial issue, I will not be too rigid in enforcing time limits for debate. Are there any further speeches to be made?

[Emsworth]

Okay, in that case:

The question is on final passage of the bill. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, No.

[Emsworth]

Why do you think we should have an officially sanctioned pledge, Senator?

It's kind of hard to explain.  I don't know, it's just an issue I feel kind of strongly about.  I think it creates national unity.

I don't mean to start the whole debate all over again, now that voting has begun, but I'm sure that national unity did not suddenly improve when the pledge was sanctioned in 1942. Also, it probably prompts some disunity among polytheists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the like.

[Emsworth]

With five Ayes, three noes, and one abstention, the bill has enough support to pass. Senators have 24 hours to vote or change their votes.

[Emsworth]

There have voted:
Aye: 5
No: 3
Abstain: 2

The bill is therefore passed, and presented to the President for his signature.